You pay your insurance premiums every month so that if you or another driver is seriously injured, you are covered. So nothing seems more unfair than being injured or having vehicular damage at the hands of an uninsured motorist. Unfortunately with today’s economic climate, your chances of being hit by an uninsured driver in Florida are 23 percent, according to the Insurance Research Council, and likely to increase to 28 percent by 2010.
Because the state of Florida does not require drivers to carry bodily injury insurance, the chances of you having an accident with someone who is not fully protected or prepared to fully protect others is increased. If you’ve had an accident with an uninsured driver in the Orlando area, the best way to protect your rights is to contact a car accident lawyer.
The state of Florida is a no-fault state and requires its drivers to carry Personal Injury protection (PIP) and property damage insurance. However, the amounts required by law are low. So, even though you think you are fully covered by the minimum legal insurance requirements, you may be surprised when coverage is insufficient to cover your injuries. To prevent such an occurrence, Florida drivers should have the following coverage to be fully protected in the event of an accident:
As a no-fault state, if you are injured in a car crash in Florida, your insurance will pay the following, up to your insurance limits, whether you were the responsible party or not:
Bodily injury liability is not required by Florida law, so if a driver causes an accident and can not afford to pay for the damages, then the driver must purchase bodily injury liability for the future and show proof of that insurance.
To learn more about Florida law or how to choose an attorney after a car accident in the Orlando area, please visit the website of Florida personal injury attorneys Colling Gilbert Wright & Carter.
Posts Tagged ‘Laws’
Florida Laws on Uninsured Driver Accidents
Thursday, November 11th, 2010Discrimination in Employment ? Relevant Federal Laws
Wednesday, November 10th, 2010Discrimination in employment is prohibited by a series of federal laws. These laws are the following:
(a) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (commonly referred to as “Title VII”);
(b) Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA);
(c) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (ADEA);
(d) The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA);
(e) The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (often referred to as “CRA of 1991″); and
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating in employment on the basis of disability, in the public sector and in the private sector, but excludes the federal government.
The ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against persons 40 years of age and older.
The EPA prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of gender in how they pay for substantially similar work under similar conditions.
The CRA of 1991 provides for monetary damages (including punitive damages) in cases of intentional (willful) discrimination and clarifies provisions about disparate impact actions.
The Rehabilitation Act, Section 501, prohibits discrimination in employment against federal employees with disabilities.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces the main federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in employment. The headquarters of the EEOC are located in Washington, D.C., and there are regional offices and local field offices throughout the country. Check telephone information under Federal Government listings for a contact phone number, if you think you may have been subjected to employment discrimination.
Plumas County Disorderly Conduct Misdemeanor California Laws Penal Code Section 647 Lawyers
Friday, November 5th, 2010In re R.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.K., Defendant and Appellant.COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICTMarch 21, 2008, Filed
He walked around to the west side of the house to a woodshed that was about 10 to 15 feet from the house. He heard noises coming from inside. When he shined a flashlight inside, he saw the minor and another juvenile. The minor smelled strongly of alcohol, his eyes were red and watery, his speech was slurred, and he was unsteady on his feet. The minor admitted he had drunk a lot that evening. The juvenile court found true an allegation against a minor for disorderly conduct in violation of Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f), for being found in a public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Whether the woodshed is a “public place” within the meaning of Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f). and there was sufficient evidence to sustain the court’s true finding that defendant violated section 647(f)?
The Court held that the woodshed was not a “public place” within the meaning of Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f). The People presented no evidence that the woodshed was open to common use, or to general use, participation, and enjoyment. That there might have been no doors on the woodshed, or fences, gates, or dogs adjacent to the area where the woodshed was located, was irrelevant. Unlike areas outside the front of a home such as driveways, lawns, or front porches that are as a general matter open to common or general use for which a homeowner might need fences, gates, or dogs to deter public access, a woodshed located 10 to 15 feet to the side of a house needs no barrier to establish that it is not open to common or general use. The Court further held that an intoxicated person who is found somewhere other than a “public place” (and it is not shown that the person has no right to be there) but who acquiesces in the police’s request to accompany the officer to a “public place” cannot be found in violation of section 647(f) based solely on the person’s presence in that “public place.”
The Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court of Plumas County.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.